It has sadly become commonplace for church leaders - both Catholic and Evangelical - to take simplistic stances on the issue of immigration. For example, see the recent social media posts of James Martin, SJ and John Piper.
This is where the writings of Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians of the medieval period, are so helpful. Roman Catholics in particular still deeply revere what he wrote and taught. While Aquinas never addressed the subject of immigration in a systematic way, there is an important section in his Summa Theologiae (Part I-II, Question 105, Article 3) where he touches upon the issue.
In the context of his work, Aquinas addresses six objections under the question of, "Whether the judicial precepts regarding foreigners were framed in a suitable manner?" While the relevant section is not very long, not all of the answers are germane to the specific issue of 'foreigners' per se, I have provided a summary of Aquinas' argument for the entire section.
Objection 1: If God does not show favouritism between people of various nations (Acts 10:34-35) then why does the Bible say that some people groups (e.g. Ammonite, Moabite) were not allowed to enter the assembly of the LORD even in the tenth generation (Deut. 23:3)? What's more, just a few verses later the text of Scripture reads, "Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country." (Deut. 23:7) In short, why are these foreigners allowed, whereas others were not?
Objection 2: In a similar way, one should not be punished for something which we were not responsible for, such as to be born a eunuch or be the child of a prostitute. And yet the Bible says that neither a eunuch or child of a prostitute is allowed to enter the assembly of the LORD (Deut. 23:1-2).
Objection 3: The OT law very clearly taught that foreigners were not to be mistreated or oppressed (Exod. 22:21). However, Israelites were allowed to charge them interest on money lent to them. Is this not a form of affliction? (See Deut. 23:19-21).
Objection 4: In times of war, the people were to be destroyed, but the fruit-trees not cut down (Deut. 20:13-19). Why does the LORD command more mercy to be shown to trees than to people who are intrinsically much more valuable?
Objection 5: When it comes to virtue, the common good is higher than the good of the individual. However, the OT law says that in a time of war, a man may be excused from military service because he has built a new house, planted a vineyard or recently been married (Deut. 20:5-7). Isn't the virtue of the individual good then usurping that of the common one?
Objection 6: The passage from Deuteronomy 20 also includes men who are afraid (Deut. 20:8). Aren't they then profiting from their own moral fault or cowardice?
Aquinas admirably notes how every part of God's Word is just, with not a single verse being crooked or perverse (Prov. 8:8). Before answering the specific objections, though, Aquinas first outlines the broader theological summary in which they should be understood. Aquinas states:
Man's relations with foreigners are twofold: peaceful, and hostile: and in directing both kinds of relation the Law contained suitable precepts. For the Jews were offered three opportunities of peaceful relations with foreigners.
First, when foreigners passed through their land as travellers.
Secondly, when they came to dwell in their land as newcomers. And in both these respects the Law made kind provision in its precepts: for it is written (Exod. 22:21): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger"; and again (Exod. 22:9): "Thou shalt not molest a stranger."
Thirdly, when any foreigners wished to be admitted entirely to their fellowship and mode of worship.
With regard to these, a certain order was observed. For they were not at once admitted to citizenship: just as it was law with some nations that no one was deemed a citizen except after two or three generations, as the Philosopher Aristotle says (Polit. iii, 1). The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners, not yet having the common good firmly at heart, might attempt something hurtful to the people.
Hence it was that the Law prescribed in respect of certain nations that had close relations with the Jews (viz., the Egyptians among whom they were born and educated, and the Idumeans, the children of Esau, Jacob's brother), that they should be admitted to the fellowship of the people after the third generation; whereas others (with whom their relations had been hostile, such as the Ammonites and Moabites) were never to be admitted to citizenship; while the Amalekites, who were yet more hostile to them, and had no fellowship of kindred with them, were to be held as foes in perpetuity: for it is written (Exod. 17:16): "The war of the Lord shall be against Amalec from generation to generation."
Aquinas makes the very important and helpful three-fold distinction between foreigners who are travellers, those who are newcomers, and finally those whom we might call "fully committed citizens". What's more, in agreement with Aristotle, Aquinas believed that extra caution should be exercised regarding people from specific nations. Wisdom even dictated that the people from some countries shouldn't be accepted until the second or even third generation, whereas other foreigners should never be accepted at all!
Aquinas understood that the historic conflict - as well as religious incongruity - with some nations was so significant that it would take a considerable period of time for genuine cultural assimilation to occur, if at all. As Aquinas once again states:
"The reason for this was that if foreigners were allowed to meddle with the affairs of a nation as soon as they settled down in its midst, many dangers might occur, since the foreigners not yet having the common good firmly at heart might attempt something hurtful to the people."
I turn now to the replies Aquinas made to the six objections:
Reply to Objection 1: Aquinas notes how the OT law didn't generally exclude people from other nations outside of Israel from coming to worship the LORD. [1] This required them to submit to the authority of the Mosaic law by being circumcised and adhering to the requirements of the Law more broadly (Exod. 12:48). However, this didn't means that foreigners were permitted to participate in the public life of the nation straight away, and some at no point at all. This would function as a deterrent to others who might wish to seek to destroy the nation from within. As Aquinas states:
But in temporal matters concerning the public life of the people, admission was not granted to everyone at once, for the reason given above: but to some, i.e. the Egyptians and Idumeans, in the third generation; while others were excluded in perpetuity, in detestation of their past offence, i.e. the peoples of Moab, Ammon, and Amalec. For just as one man is punished for a sin committed by him, in order that others seeing this may be deterred and refrain from sinning; so too may one nation or city be punished for a crime, that others may refrain from similar crimes.
However, even here, Aquinas's conclusion is theologically nuanced in that he understands how some "forbidden foreigners" (from nations which were not allowed to join Israel) could be included due to some act of virtue. Aquinas refers to the apocryphal book of Judith 14:6 and Ruth 3:11. [2]
Reply to Objection 2: In regard to eunuchs and 'bastards' (the sons of prostitutes), this does not relate to foreigners but specifically to the people of Israel. Hence, it is not really relevant to the discussion at hand. However, even here, Aquinas explains how even people who are natural citizens within a nation are not to be automatically granted the full rights of participating in government.
Reply to Objection 3: In regard to the charging of interest to foreigners - but not to fellow Israelites - Aquinas states: "It was not the intention of the Law to sanction the acceptance of usury from strangers, but only to tolerate it on account of the proneness of the Jews to avarice; and in order to promote an amicable feeling towards those out of whom they made a profit."
Significantly, the law clearly stipulated different requirements as to how fellow Israelite citizens related to one another compared to those in other nations. Much like the practice of tradie tariffs and economic sanctions perhaps being practised today? (Deut. 23:19-21).
Reply to Objection 4: Aquinas once again makes an important distinction as to how the people of foreign nations - in particular, whether they are near or far - are to be treated in times of war. As Aquinas states:
A distinction was observed with regard to hostile cities. For some of them were far distant, and were not among those which had been promised to them. When they had taken these cities, they killed all the men who had fought against God's people; whereas the women and children were spared. But in the neighbouring cities which had been promised to them, all were ordered to be slain, on account of their former crimes, to punish which God sent the Israelites as executor of Divine justice: for it is written (Deut. 9:5) "because they have done wickedly, they are destroyed at thy coming in." The fruit-trees were commanded to be left untouched, for the use of the people themselves, to whom the city with its territory was destined to be subjected.
Aquinas rightly understood how people were morally accountable to God in a way in which plants (fruit-trees) were not. What's more, Aquinas also observed how Israel herself was an agent of God's wrath against the wickedness of surrounding peoples.
Reply to Objections 5 and 6: The reply to the two final objections doesn't involve the foreigner, but rather, the citizen of Israel. Aquinas strongly believed that the common good of the nation, though, was upheld by the action of the individual. However, this is why it's crucial for citizens to have allegiance to their country and not to a foreign one.
There is much that we can learn from Aquinas' brief thoughts on the 'foreigner'. While we should strive to show Christian charity and compassion to those seeking refuge, this must never be at the expense of national unity or the common good. As John Horvatt II explains:
Immigration should have as its goal integration, not disintegration or segregation. The immigrant should not only desire to assume the benefits but the responsibilities of joining into the full fellowship of the nation. By becoming a citizen, a person becomes part of a broad family over the long term and not a shareholder in a joint stock company seeking only short-term self-interest.
Secondly, Saint Thomas teaches that immigration must have in mind the common good; it cannot destroy or overwhelm a nation.
This explains why so many Americans experience uneasiness caused by massive and disproportional immigration. Such policy artificially introduces a situation that destroys common points of unity and overwhelms the ability of a society to absorb new elements organically into a unified culture. The common good is no longer considered.
A proportional immigration has always been a healthy development in a society since it injects new life and qualities into a social body. But when it loses that proportion and undermines the purpose of the State, it threatens the well-being of the nation.
When this happens, the nation would do well to follow the advice of Saint Thomas Aquinas and biblical principles. The nation must practice justice and charity towards all, including foreigners, but it must above all safeguard the common good and its unity, without which no country can long endure.
.
.
The issue of immigration today is not just an American problem, though, but a Western one. Traditionally Christian countries are being inundated with foreigners who do not share their values or beliefs but also have allegiances to countries in other lands. While it is politically fashionable - especially from those on the Left - to identify illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants", this is an Orwellian distraction from the fact that they have acted criminally in breaking federal law.
Dr James Hoffmeier, a leading evangelical Old Testament scholar, has written an insightful book on this subject, The Immigration Crisis: Immigrants, Aliens and the Bible (Crossway, 2009). Hoffmeier argues that the key to understanding what the Old Testament teaches on this topic is to realise that there is a definite distinction between those who come from other countries to settle in the land of Israel as legal 'aliens' and those who do not, i.e. 'foreigners'. As Hoffmeier explains:
'Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any sense that a nation had to accept immigrants, nor was being received as an alien a right... The Bible clearly distinguishes between the status of a legal alien (ger) and a foreigner (nekhar and zar), and one consequence is that there really is a difference between the legal standing of a present-day documented alien and an illegal immigrant. Therefore, it is legally and morally acceptable for government to deal with those in the country illegally according to the nation's legal provisions. The Christian insists, however, that they be dealt with in a humane manner.'
Likewise, New Testament theologian Dr Wayne Grudem argues in Politics According to the Bible (Zondervan, 2010):
'Another important consideration from the Bible concerns the general responsibilities of governments to seek the good of the nations that they rule (Rom. 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14) and thereby truly serve as "God's servant for your good" (Rom. 13:4). This means that the immigration policies of a nation should be designed to bring benefit to that specific nation....Therefore, immigration policies should be designed to bring benefit to the well-being of the nation as a whole.' [emphasis his]
Further, according to Grudem, the practical ramifications for following such Biblical principles are as follows:
'It is appropriate that priority in immigration be given, for example, to those who have sufficient education and training to support themselves and contribute well to... society, those who have demonstrated significant achievement in some area or another, and all those who otherwise give evidence that they will make a positive contribution. It is appropriate, also to exclude those with a criminal record, those who have communicable diseases, or those who otherwise give indication that their overall contribution would likely be negative rather than positive in terms of advancing the well-being of the nation.' [emphasis his]
We must therefore continue to show compassion mixed with discernment. The writings of Aquinas demonstrate that it is neither Biblical nor wise to pursue an 'open border' policy which does not discriminate.
In practice, there are no easy answers to this issue, and instead we should seek to be as the Lord Jesus Christ taught, as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves (Matt. 10:16). What's more, we should seek to actively uphold those who are in authority over us in prayer (1 Tim. 2:1-3).